Public Statements

Full-Year Continuing Appropriations Act, 2011

Floor Speech

Mr. WEINER. Mr. Chairman, would it be appropriate under the rules in the UC that have been suggested that we divide the question so that Members of Congress can vote individually on whether to deny seniors coverage for the doughnut hole, to deny coverage for pre-existing conditions, to deny small businesses from getting the tax benefit in this bill, all the different things--would it be appropriate to divide the question that way so that all of the benefits that Americans get they can see individually where my Republican friends stand on them?

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. WEINER. Mr. Chair, I agree with the gentleman. His amendment is clearly in order. But I know this because if this were legislating on this bill, that would mean that they can legislate. They controlled the House and the Senate and the Presidency; they were unable to legislate. We've been here for 8 weeks; they're unable to legislate. It is impossible to believe he is legislating in this bill.

The point of order, if I may speak to it, suggests that the gentleman is legislating on an appropriations bill. I have watched those guys. They're incapable. There is no way this is legislating. So I believe the point of order should be struck down. It is impossible. After 8 weeks they haven't legislated. They had 8 years in the majority, and they didn't legislate. How can it possibly be, Mr. Chairman, that the point of order is correct?

The gentlelady from Connecticut is rarely incorrect, but if you think they're legislating, impossible, almost metaphysically impossible for the gentleman to legislate. He doesn't know how. How can we possibly have the legislating in this bill?

I think the gentleman is absolutely correct. Let us have this debate because if it is that moment, if lightning is striking, if it is chilly in hell, then maybe this is the moment we have been waiting for--the Republican majority is going to start legislating. Please, praise God, maybe this is the moment.

So I think the gentleman is correct. He is not legislating in this bill because it is impossible for them to do so because they simply don't know how.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. WEINER. Madam Chair, I make a point of order that the gentleman's amendment is not in order because it results in a net reduction of revenues to the Treasury, in violation of the rules of the House and in violation of the rules stipulated in this bill. I explain that in the following way:

As the gentleman surely knows, if his amendment is successful, the checks that are going to small businesses today, the tax breaks that they are getting to provide health care to their workers and the fact that there are no burdens on those small businesses means that they are going to have less money to spend, therefore less people they will be able to hire, a reduction in the amount of jobs, a reduction in the amount of revenue coming into the government, an increased burden on government services.

In fact, the gentleman would say that anyone that would be writing the check to give back to citizens, they can't do it. Anyone taking that check, bringing it to them can't any longer do it. Anyone cashing that check would be in violation of the law. This amendment says that anyone getting a tax break under this bill would have to give it back. That would provide a net reduction in the amount of economic activity and job creation in this country, and therefore his amendment is out of order.